AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in IT(SS)A No.78/Rjt/2023, for assessment Year 2016-17, in case of Chintan Kumar Rameshbhai Patel, have been taken into consideration for deciding the above appeals en masse. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee as per 'lead case' in IT(SS)A No. 78/Rjt/2023, for assessment year (AY).2016-17, are as follows: "1. That the learned A.O. has grievously erred in law and on facts in passing the assessment order u/s 153C of the Act, after the end of time limit for completion of assessment u/s 153C of the Act, as specified u/s 153B of the Act and hence the assessment order is bad and illegal being barred by limitation. 2. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the assessee that assessment order is time barred as no tax payable is determined as well as no notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act is served to the assessee and hence assessment order is bad and illegal being barred by limitation or otherwise. 3. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, an apparent delay has occurred in filing the appeal before this Hon'ble Bench. Hence, this application of the condonation of delay. 2. The period of limitation for filling the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is sixty days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or to the Principal Commissioner or commissioner as the case may be. 3. It is submitted that order of the CIT(A) u/s 250 of that Act dated 03.03.2023, which is the order appealed against is not served on the registered email address namely [email protected] of the assessee and therefore assessee was not aware of the fact that order u/s 250 is passed. Even in the appeal memo form no.35, the email address namely [email protected] is stated for communication. Despite that the said order is served only on the old email address namely [email protected] which is of earlier consultant. (Copy of the screenshot of the portal showing registered email address namely [email protected], copy of the form no.35 and screenshot of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....namely [email protected] is stated for communication. Despite that the said order is served only on the old email address namely '[email protected]' which is of earlier consultant. (Copy of the screenshot of the portal showing registered email address namely [email protected], copy of the form no.35 and screenshot of the portal showing the service of the said order on an old email address namely [email protected] of earlier consultant were filed by the assessee before the Bench.). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that assessee has explained the sufficient cause/reason in the petition for condonation of delay and therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that reasons mentioned in the petition for condonation of delay are sufficient to condone the delay, therefore, the minor delay, in all these appeals, may be condoned. 7. On the other hand, Learned Commissioner of Income-tax - Departmental Representative (Ld. CIT-DR) opposed the prayer of the assessee to condone the delay and stated that delay should not be condoned on such flimsy reasons. The assessee, has explained only one ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....analysis of the said images, it has been found that the assessee has made unaccounted transactions. During the course of assessment proceeding u/s 153A, in the case of Shri Dignesh Patel, a satisfaction note was recorded, considering all the facts of the case. Again, a satisfaction also recorded, in accordance to the provision of the Income Tax Act 1961, by the jurisdictional assessing officer and notice u/s 153C was issued, which were duly served upon the assessee. Copy of the satisfaction note and Seized documents have also supplied to the assessee. Notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued on 18.03.2021, which was duly served upon the assessee through registered e-mail. The return of income was required to be filed within 7 days of the receipt of the notice. In response to the notice u/s 153C of the Act, assessee has filed his return of income, on 30.03.2021, showing therein income of Rs. 3,21,950/-. Further detailed questionnaire was issued on 25.03.2021, along with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 12.04.2021, which was served upon the assessee. 11. In response to the above notice/questionnaire, the assessee has submitted h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. 115BBE. (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (a) the amount of income-tax calculated on income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent, and (b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1)." Therefore, please show cause on or before 12.04.2021 as to why the sum of Rs. 35,367/- should not be charged to tax at a special rate as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act as reproduced hereinabove." 12. In response to the above, said show-cause notice, the assessee furnished followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 04.03.2017 determining total income at Rs. 2,85,620/-. Thereafter, a search action u/s.132 of the Act was carried out at the residential premises of Shri Dignesh Rajeshbhai Patel at Visnagar. During the course of search action, digital data was extracted from the I-phone 6S of Shri Dignesh Patel. On analysis of the said digital data, it was noticed that the partners on behalf of firm M/s. V. R. Infosystem LLP, had incurred cash expenses of Rs. 3,60,240/-. When the transaction mentioned in the seized digital data were matched with the books of account of the said firm, it was noticed that expense of Rs. 3,53,670/- for A.Y.2016-17 and Rs. 10,55,095/- for A.Y.2017-18 were not recorded in the books of the account of M/s. V. R. Infosystem LLP. It is also noticed that Shri Dignesh Rajeshbhia Patel & the assessee Shri Chintan R. Patel were the partner of 35% & 10% respectively in the firm M/s. V. R. Infosystem LLP. Accordingly, notice u/s.153C of the Act was issued to the assessee, on 18.03.2021 and the assessee had filed return of income in response to the notice u/s 153C of the Act on 30.03.2021 showing total income of Rs. 3,21,950/- including voluntar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his partner Shri Dignesh Patel. It is also important to mention here that the assessee had also failed to explain the reason for not incorporating the additional income of Rs. 35,367/- in original return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act and no satisfactory details for the source of the said unexplained investment in cash was filed. Therefore, it is a clear-cut case of concealment of income in the form of additional income and the same should be treated as unexplained Investment u/s.69B of the Act in place of income from other source. 7.3.1 Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income tax [2014] 1 SCC 674 wherein Hon'ble court observed that "the AO, in our view, shall not be carried away by the plea of the assessee like 'voluntary disclosure', 'buy peace', 'avoid litigation', 'amicable settlement etc., to explain away its conduct. The question is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 7.4 It is necessary to discuss about the section 115BB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal proceedings u/s.274 r.w.s. 271AAC (1) of the Act, being premature is not entertained and is dismissed. 9. The ground of appeal no. 6 is against the AO charging interest under Section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. Since, charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature, this ground of appeal no. 3 is dismissed. 10. The ground of appeal no. 7 is general in nature, hence dismissed. 11. Additional ground of appeal-: During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has taken additional ground of appeal, which is reproduced as under: - "The assessment order is time barred as no tax payable is determined by the AO within the time prescribed under section 153A of the Act. As the tax payable on assessed income is not determined and served within prescribed assessment became time barred on this ground. The CIT(A) prayed to consider the assessment time- barred on this ground." 11.1 In this regard, the assessee has stated that the said grounds could not be included in original grounds of appeal as the assessee was not aware about the complicated legal provisions and he come know about correct position only recently. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y on record which goes to the root of the matter and no further inquiry is required for deciding the same as all facts are already on record. The same and identical, additional ground are raised, in all these four appeals, by the assessees. That is, all these four appeals, contain the similar and identical additional ground on technical issue. Therefore, in the light of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd., vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 382 (SC), we admit the additional grounds raised by the assessee in all these four appeals. Arguments of Learned Counsel for the assessee, on additional ground. 19. Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, argued before us, that assessing officer has not passed the order u/s 153C of the Act, in case of all these assessees, within the time limit, prescribed under section 153B the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through sub- section (1) of section 153B of the Act and the proviso thereof and contended that as per the proviso, 9 months period is available and as per clause (a) and clause(b), 21 months period is also available, therefore, whichever pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion (1) of section 153B of the Act, which reads as under: "153B. Time limit for completion of assessment under section 153A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 153, the Assessing Officer shall make an order of assessment or reassessment,- (a) in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A, within a period of twenty-one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorizations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed; (b) in respect of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A, within a period of twenty-one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorizations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed: Provided that in case of other person referred to in section 153C, the period of limitation for making the assessment or reassessment shall be the period as referred to in cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....officer, under section 153C read with section 143(3), dated 21.04.2021, is barred by limitation, by 111 days, therefore, the assessment order, should be quashed, on this fact only. 24. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted before the Bench, a chart showing, appeal- wise, status stating the date of assessment order passed, and the date on which the assessment order ought to have been passed, and the number of days of delay in passing the assessment order as per the conditions mentioned in section 153B of the Act, etc. have been stated, which is reproduced below for ready reference: 25. We have examined the facts stated in the above chart and noted that in all the appeals, the similar and identical issues were involved, and in case of every appeal, noted above, the assessment order is time barred, therefore, the assessment order, passed by the assessing officer under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act, needs to be quashed. 26. Article 265 of the Constitution of India lays down that, "No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law". The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the this provision under Article 265 of the Constitution of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e limit to pass an assessment order, under any particular section of the Income Tax Act, should be followed strictly. 27. Law is well settled that when the statute requires to do certain thing in certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim 'Expressio unius est exclusion alteris', meaning there by that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following of other course is not permissible. (Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253; Ram Phal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma [2004] 2 SCC 759 and Indian Bank's Association v. Devkala Consultancy Service AIR 2004 SC 2615). Similar view has been expressed in the Orissa Rural Housing Development Corpn. Ltd, 343 ITR 316(Orissa). We note that Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo motu writ petition in MA No. 21 of 2022 (SC- - Suo Motu Writ Petition-COVID period) and stated that in assessee's case assessment order was framed by the assessing ....